Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jaeger" data-source="post: 8231557" data-attributes="member: 27996">The top 2 RPGs are D&amp;D and D&amp;D's clone.There is enough room. But 4e aside, D&amp;D's market dominance trumps all.Good enough and first can be overcome, but none of D&amp;D's early challengers really even tried. And now it is too late.It's not enough to merely mimic the design of the market leader, people have to perceive that you are offering an objectively better product to make a switch worth the trouble.D&amp;D's system from its beginning to early 80's to the 3e era +5e was certainly &quot;good enough&quot;.Any potential competitor would have not only had to have a great system that matched or exceeded D&amp;D on all 5 points. But they would have had to put out enough support, and been successful enough that they could then be around for when TSR/WOTC made a misstep. (Assuming they didn't screw the pooch themselves business wise.)In 20/20 hindsight, that is one tall naughty word order. Good Enough + Market Leader = No can defend.Until 4e vs Pathfinder. &nbsp;And even then, Pathfinders ascent was more due to a series of WOTC own goals rather than anything resembling great game design from Paizo.Yes, Really.AD&amp;D1e was a hot mess. Brilliant. But a mess.The D&amp;D rules as expressed in B/X or the BE portion of BECMI are not arcane or counter intuitive to the average novice or even the average hobbyist.You immediately jumped into a group of people who 'knew' how to play the game, and benefitted for a big network effect. A lot of early players did. (And this still is a big part of D&amp;D's success!)But a whole ton of people also got their first exposure to the game from the B/X set they bought in their local walgreens and decided to try it out with some friends.B/X was huge. There is a reason most OSR clones resemble B/X rather than AD&amp;D.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jaeger, post: 8231557, member: 27996"] The top 2 RPGs are D&D and D&D's clone. There is enough room. But 4e aside, D&D's market dominance trumps all. Good enough and first can be overcome, but none of D&D's early challengers really even tried. And now it is too late. It's not enough to merely mimic the design of the market leader, people have to perceive that you are offering an objectively better product to make a switch worth the trouble. D&D's system from its beginning to early 80's to the 3e era +5e was certainly "[I]good enough[/I]". Any potential competitor would have not only had to have a great system that matched or exceeded D&D on all 5 points. But they would have had to put out enough support, and been successful enough that they could then be around for when TSR/WOTC made a misstep. (Assuming they didn't screw the pooch themselves business wise.) In 20/20 hindsight, that is one tall naughty word order. Good Enough + Market Leader = No can defend. Until 4e vs Pathfinder. And even then, Pathfinders ascent was more due to a series of WOTC own goals rather than anything resembling great game design from Paizo. Yes, Really. AD&D1e was a hot mess. Brilliant. But a mess. The D&D rules as expressed in B/X or the BE portion of BECMI are not arcane or counter intuitive to the average novice or even the average hobbyist. You immediately jumped into a group of people who 'knew' how to play the game, and benefitted for a big network effect. A lot of early players did. (And this still is a big part of D&D's success!) But a whole ton of people also got their first exposure to the game from the B/X set they bought in their local walgreens and decided to try it out with some friends. B/X was huge. There is a reason most OSR clones resemble B/X rather than AD&D. [/QUOTE]

Verification